Author
Topic: Look both ways before you cross (Read 12798 times)

I have a confession to make, I need to come out of the closet. I am a right wing Discordian.

Yes, as the left preaches, I am a racist, islamaphobic, hate mongering, anti-feminist rapist, fundamentalist eater of babies!

Now as you sharpen your pitch forks and prepare the gallows for me, there may arise some questions. Why a right wing Discordian? HOW can you be a right wing Discordian and what do babies taste like?

I honestly can not see how a person can reconcile the left with Discordian thought. The left destroys free will, free speech and free thinking. How do the left think and act?

Let's start with "no platforming" shall we? You don't like what someone says? Don't like that fact they dare to disagree? Sure, we'll no platform you! Freedom of speech, provided you say what we agree with. So often the left have stopped opposition voices from speaking at debates, university forums and events. they think it's cool and hip to deny ANY thought or word that does not conform with their world view.Ok, let us look at this again, it is something that really stands out to me about the left. If you disagree with them, they will actively block you from speaking out, they will deny you freedom to express your view, freedom to think and be a certain way because it goes against what they believe. Seriously, watch these buggers in action on youtube, watch how they "no platform" people. Left wing stormtroopers enforcing "correct thought".

Don't like the result of an election or referendum? We'll riot, burn and destroy till we get what we want! We'll demand more referendums till we get the result we want and if the other side don't like it, well that's "undemocratic."

Disagree with freedom of movement? You are racist, doesn't matter your reasons, you are racist, islamaphobic scum.

Are the right much better? In extremis, no better than the left, yet we are sleepwalking into a paradigm shift that is dangerous. I am British and I look at the rise of Corbyn with horror, I look at the rise of the far left, becoming the MAINSTREAM left and wonder when the hammer will fall.

People have this black and white view of the world. Right wing bad, left wing good, make all those evil black hearted fascists into good white knights and the world becomes a better place.

The world becomes a better place when the little black and white pawns become grey!

Wake up and smell the reality, this political bullshit is a circle, you go left far enough and you end up at the same dark, ugly, brutal extreme that you end up if you go too far right.

This, THIS, is the problem we have. Everyone knows what happens if you go too far right, it's hammered into us day in and day out and it's a valid, special warning. yet the consequences of this steady march to the left are just as dark and deadly. To me, to be Discordian is not to replace the grid marked "right" with the grid marked "left", it is to remove the grids entirely.

The signs are all there, if you open your eyes and look for them. Look both ways before you cross people, cross the road looking one way is going to get us all hit by a big freaking bus.

I honestly can not see how a person can reconcile the left with Discordian thought. The left destroys free will, free speech and free thinking. How do the left think and act?

Let's start with "no platforming" shall we? You don't like what someone says? Don't like that fact they dare to disagree? Sure, we'll no platform you! Freedom of speech, provided you say what we agree with. So often the left have stopped opposition voices from speaking at debates, university forums and events. they think it's cool and hip to deny ANY thought or word that does not conform with their world view.Ok, let us look at this again, it is something that really stands out to me about the left. If you disagree with them, they will actively block you from speaking out, they will deny you freedom to express your view, freedom to think and be a certain way because it goes against what they believe. Seriously, watch these buggers in action on youtube, watch how they "no platform" people. Left wing stormtroopers enforcing "correct thought".

I think conflating the population into either 'Left' or 'Right' is a dangerous game. It seems to be happening more and more (or i'm just paying more attention) and it makes dialog difficult.

Quote

Don't like the result of an election or referendum? We'll riot, burn and destroy till we get what we want! We'll demand more referendums till we get the result we want and if the other side don't like it, well that's "undemocratic."

This leads me to believe you read a lot of the right-wing press. The 'day of rage' organised after the election was laughably and predictably pathetic. People have pretty much come to terms with Brexit, whatever those terms may be.

Just as with the Right there are some elements of the Left that are more about causing chaos than furthering their political agendas. They also don't like losing. In an election where nobody wins that's a lot of losers.

Quote

Disagree with freedom of movement? You are racist, doesn't matter your reasons, you are racist, islamaphobic scum.

People can be quick to judge but I have yet to hear an argument against freedom of movement that doesn't play on fear of the other.

Quote

Are the right much better? In extremis, no better than the left, yet we are sleepwalking into a paradigm shift that is dangerous. I am British and I look at the rise of Corbyn with horror, I look at the rise of the far left, becoming the MAINSTREAM left and wonder when the hammer will fall.

Why do you fear Corbyn? I have heard many people, friends and family say this but nobody can give me that concrete of an answer. Just some sort of ambiguous "He would be bad" statement.

Quote

Wake up and smell the reality, this political bullshit is a circle, you go left far enough and you end up at the same dark, ugly, brutal extreme that you end up if you go too far right.

This, THIS, is the problem we have. Everyone knows what happens if you go too far right, it's hammered into us day in and day out and it's a valid, special warning. yet the consequences of this steady march to the left are just as dark and deadly. To me, to be Discordian is not to replace the grid marked "right" with the grid marked "left", it is to remove the grids entirely.

This I can get behind.

Logged

"I was fine until my skin came off. I'm never going to South Attelboro again."

I have a confession to make, I need to come out of the closet. I am a right wing Discordian.

Yes, as the left preaches, I am a racist, islamaphobic, hate mongering, anti-feminist rapist, fundamentalist eater of babies!

Now as you sharpen your pitch forks and prepare the gallows for me, there may arise some questions. Why a right wing Discordian? HOW can you be a right wing Discordian and what do babies taste like?

I honestly can not see how a person can reconcile the left with Discordian thought. The left destroys free will, free speech and free thinking. How do the left think and act?

Let's start with "no platforming" shall we? You don't like what someone says? Don't like that fact they dare to disagree? Sure, we'll no platform you! Freedom of speech, provided you say what we agree with. So often the left have stopped opposition voices from speaking at debates, university forums and events. they think it's cool and hip to deny ANY thought or word that does not conform with their world view.Ok, let us look at this again, it is something that really stands out to me about the left. If you disagree with them, they will actively block you from speaking out, they will deny you freedom to express your view, freedom to think and be a certain way because it goes against what they believe. Seriously, watch these buggers in action on youtube, watch how they "no platform" people. Left wing stormtroopers enforcing "correct thought".

Don't like the result of an election or referendum? We'll riot, burn and destroy till we get what we want! We'll demand more referendums till we get the result we want and if the other side don't like it, well that's "undemocratic."

Disagree with freedom of movement? You are racist, doesn't matter your reasons, you are racist, islamaphobic scum.

Are the right much better? In extremis, no better than the left, yet we are sleepwalking into a paradigm shift that is dangerous. I am British and I look at the rise of Corbyn with horror, I look at the rise of the far left, becoming the MAINSTREAM left and wonder when the hammer will fall.

People have this black and white view of the world. Right wing bad, left wing good, make all those evil black hearted fascists into good white knights and the world becomes a better place.

The world becomes a better place when the little black and white pawns become grey!

Wake up and smell the reality, this political bullshit is a circle, you go left far enough and you end up at the same dark, ugly, brutal extreme that you end up if you go too far right.

This, THIS, is the problem we have. Everyone knows what happens if you go too far right, it's hammered into us day in and day out and it's a valid, special warning. yet the consequences of this steady march to the left are just as dark and deadly. To me, to be Discordian is not to replace the grid marked "right" with the grid marked "left", it is to remove the grids entirely.

The signs are all there, if you open your eyes and look for them. Look both ways before you cross people, cross the road looking one way is going to get us all hit by a big freaking bus.

It's chicken by the way, babies taste like chicken.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean people have to listen to you, and it certainly doesn't mean they have to give you a platform to spout your views. The only time it's censorship is when your government actively attempts to stop you from saying something, otherwise it is the "marketplace of ideas" which is rejecting your views. I used that metaphor specifically you.

Freedom of speech is also the freedom to ignore speech, or react negatively to speech. It works both ways.

And you're hilarious if you don't think the "right" shoots down ideas they don't approve of. Hilarious.

Here's how I look at it, and it's a simple view because I am a simple man... the left, for the most part, have the rights of the disenfranchised at heart. Mind you, I said "for the most part". Whereas the right, for the most part, are in it for themselves.

If that's your bag, have at it, but don't expect people to like it.

Logged

“Soon all of us will have special names” — Professor Brian O’Blivion

"Now's not the time to get silly, so wear your big boots and jump on the garbage clowns." — Bob Dylan?

"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes" — Walt Whitman

I notice the OP is discussing what could be called the framework of ideas.

Side A shuts down and taboos a certain kind of speech, rather than mandating all views be presented.

Idealistically, all views should be acknowledged, discussed, concurred, and resolved.

Where you're falling down is on the last part. For example, should every discussion on Astrophysics also include equal time for heliocentric flat earth theory? For every hour's lecture on molecular biology, should there also spend an hour on creationism?

Should every discussion about systemic racism feature a Pros and Cons section about why racism is bad?

Think For Yourself doesn't mean every thought must be built from the void and derived from first principles, just like a quantum equation doesn't need to start with F=ma.

Pragmatically, many - if not most - if not almost all - of the views in the marketplace of ideas are old ones. They have been acknowledged, they have been discussed, they have been debated, conclusions have been made, and they have been resolved, one way or the other.

And Bayes' Theorem says we only need to update our priors in the presence of new information.

Since you don't state any of your own ideas or beliefs (or strong leanings, or fuzzy logic, or whatever) about things, let's take Gay Rights as a subject.

In the modern culture, homosexuality has been acknowledged for millennia. Discussions about Homosexuality have been happening for an equal amount of time. Typically, they fall into the Homophilic and Homophobic (in the Greek sense of the suffix) camps.

"Homosexuals are equal to Heterosexuals because...""Homosexuals are not equal to Heterosexuals because..."

Much of the historical argument against Homosexuality has been religious, especially once the false trappings of "civilized decency" and "morality" have been made apparent. Science soon followed, but when examined closely, the science was also shown to be developing evidence based upon conclusions.

The Religious arguments haven't really changed in a few thousand years. The scientific arguments have changed in the last 100 years, but they have all faced the same problem, i.e. they're not scientific arguments. I can't conceivably think of a new, novel, untested, undebated argument against Homosexuality since probably the AIDS crisis, and that wasn't a terribly good one.

So: the idea that Homosexuals are not equal to Heterosexuals has been acknowledged, discussed, debated, and resolved (at least by Side A).

And: No new ideas have been brought to the argument.

Meaning: Priors do not need to be updated.

The above being true, is there any reason why, for example, a Pride parade should be compelled to lend their "platform" to the Westboro Baptist Church to tell them "God Hates Fags"?

That out of the way Fallenkezef, would you mind sharing your right wing beliefs? I only ask because your post seems to complain about left wing groups disagreeing with right wing ideas, and the examples you use unfortunately imply that you have a severe lack of compassion in your idea set, and may think certain groups of humans are not equal to others.

Right and wrong beliefs? That's an interesting one. I have a moral framework based on my religion (Nordic paganism) and personal morality.

This leads to a mixed bag, I support equal rights and came down hard on the side of gay rights and gay marriage, I don't have any of that judeo-christian baggage. However I also favour the death penalty.

Many of my "right and wrongs" are personal. I am against abortion but as a man feel it's none of my damn business. I'd encourage a lass to seek other options but it's her own choice.

This leads to the question, how are you right wing? My right leanings tend to be more economic and geo-political than social.

My point regarding "no platforming" is the precedent set in the far left for censorship of ideas. Today it's holocaust deniers and anti-gay rights protestors. Not exactly a bad idea to be honest, however what next? The far left set the precedent that shutting down "bad" thought and speech is ok. What happens when they come to power and become those who decide what is "bad"?

Right and wrong beliefs? That's an interesting one. I have a moral framework based on my religion (Nordic paganism) and personal morality.

This leads to a mixed bag, I support equal rights and came down hard on the side of gay rights and gay marriage, I don't have any of that judeo-christian baggage. However I also favour the death penalty.

Many of my "right and wrongs" are personal. I am against abortion but as a man feel it's none of my damn business. I'd encourage a lass to seek other options but it's her own choice.

This leads to the question, how are you right wing? My right leanings tend to be more economic and geo-political than social.

My point regarding "no platforming" is the precedent set in the far left for censorship of ideas. Today it's holocaust deniers and anti-gay rights protestors. Not exactly a bad idea to be honest, however what next? The far left set the precedent that shutting down "bad" thought and speech is ok. What happens when they come to power and become those who decide what is "bad"?

The bolded phrases lead me to think you might need to re-read my post. I don't think I said anything to the effect of "right and wrong beliefs", and if I did make any implications about my personal principles based on my post, I have no idea how you concluded I was right wing.

For me, leaning towards the "left wing" doesn't have to do with the high level philosophical debate of Justice vs Equality, or Big State vs Small State... it's more about who do I want to defend?

-I've got gay friends who couldn't get married until a few years ago-I've got trans friends in Texas who are literally afraid to go to the bathroom in public-Right after the election, there was a huge uptick in public racism and violence-Education's getting more expensive and privatized-Health care is getting more expensive and privatized-The KKK is recruiting and expanding-Wealth is more concentrated than ever-The environment is falling apart

I don't see the "right wing" offering any decent response to any of the above. If they could present a better case, I'd listen. A good answer can potentially come from any group of people.

But in the US, half of the right wing seems like it's working on dismantling the government entirely, and the other half is just itchy to stick it to liberals, even if it means drilling holes in the boat we share.

Ok, right wing. I am firmly against the "welfare state" concept taken to the extreme of the British labour party. I do believe the state has an obligation to the people but it works both ways.A system in which the able bodied are fit to work but supported by the state is abhorrent to me. I believe in national service, note I do not mean military, the able bodied should serve the state in return for support from the state.

Of course the elderly and the disabled should be supported.

I belueve in more right wing, militant geo-politics but not the reckless "democracy or bust" crap that caused all this mess in the middle east.

Kinda hard to just list right wing beliefs to be honest, could be here all day making a list without context to said belief.

For me, leaning towards the "left wing" doesn't have to do with the high level philosophical debate of Justice vs Equality, or Big State vs Small State... it's more about who do I want to defend?

-I've got gay friends who couldn't get married until a few years ago-I've got trans friends in Texas who are literally afraid to go to the bathroom in public-Right after the election, there was a huge uptick in public racism and violence-Education's getting more expensive and privatized-Health care is getting more expensive and privatized-The KKK is recruiting and expanding-Wealth is more concentrated than ever-The environment is falling apart

I don't see the "right wing" offering any decent response to any of the above. If they could present a better case, I'd listen. A good answer can potentially come from any group of people.

But in the US, half of the right wing seems like it's working on dismantling the government entirely, and the other half is just itchy to stick it to liberals, even if it means drilling holes in the boat we share.

British politics seems very different from US. It was the right wing government in Britain that legalised gay marriage. I do understand America is far more polarised than Europe

Ok, right wing. I am firmly against the "welfare state" concept taken to the extreme of the British labour party. I do believe the state has an obligation to the people but it works both ways.A system in which the able bodied are fit to work but supported by the state is abhorrent to me. I believe in national service, note I do not mean military, the able bodied should serve the state in return for support from the state.

Of course the elderly and the disabled should be supported.

I belueve in more right wing, militant geo-politics but not the reckless "democracy or bust" crap that caused all this mess in the middle east.

Kinda hard to just list right wing beliefs to be honest, could be here all day making a list without context to said belief.

That kind of "national service" is ridiculous. It amounts to useless busywork meted out to the unfortunate just because productivity is somehow morally equated with the right to survive. The reason I say this isn't because we should "reward" laziness but because at our current level of technological achievement, increasing automation has caused general productivity to skyrocket while causing the ability of the average worker to contribute to it to plummet. The result is that we have masses of people who cannot really do anything of economic value because we have automated systems and machines doing a lot of the work. Requiring them to basically dig holes and fill them back up again just to prove they deserve a loaf of bread and a shitty apartment is a waste of resources.

Capitalist economies require growth in order to survive. Traditionally that growth has come from opening new markets, but soon there will be few "new" markets to open. If capitalism expects to survive, it will have to expand existing markets which means increasing the purchasing power of people inside already-capitalist zones even if those people cannot be productive enough to "warrant" that increased purchasing power. Otherwise, what we'll have is a ton of resources being created by increasingly automated systems, but no one who can afford to buy them, causing demand for everything from bread to yachts to first spike uncontrollably and then crash irretrievably.

The answer is obvious, but is anathema to traditionalists who have always (nominally) equated purchasing power with productivity somehow, despite the fact that that has never been the case (the most wealthy people have always been the least productive). Universal basic income which meets the fundamental survival needs of everyone without requiring anything "in return" leads to a workforce that is more healthy, more productive thanks to the availability of ongoing education, and able to purchase goods and services which would otherwise be out of their reach. Additionally, in the near future, failure to provide this baseline standard of living will put a society at a serious disadvantage in a global economy where other nations are doing it. Their people will not have the tools they need to compete with others, and the society will fail.

It's also worth noting that your "right wing" position would put you substantially to the left of just about every single Republican in America. Which is sort of off-putting for me.

In terms of your geopolitical stance, I actually agree that our nationbuilding in the Middle East has been a horrific disaster, but mostly that's because that region was designed intentionally to be unstable except under totalitarian rule by the British Empire a century ago, and it has been exploited, attacked, defamed, and insulted non-stop for that entire period. Ethnic and religious groups have been intentionally divided and provoked to violence specifically in order to prevent them from coalescing into a coherent empire (which they have been very good at for thousands of years). Democracy aside, it was the West that created the mess we have in the Middle East and it didn't start in 2001.